Although operating in very different mediums, novelist John Steinbeck and filmmaker Preston Sturges were among the first American artists to explore philosophical solutions to the economic parody that gripped the national psyche from 1929 until 1941. Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath (1939) and Sturges's Sullivan's Travels (1941) emerged into the cultural dialogue far enough into the 1990s. of the Great Depression so that each work is able to synthesize the trends of the time into broad and comprehensive social theories about the relationships between individuals in society. Steinbeck anchored his “law” in secular humanism and advocated a shift from acquisitive individualism to a more communitarian ideal. Using the Joad family as a representative case of the conversion from “I” to “we,” Steinbeck extends the definition of family from the strictly biological sense to a much broader notion of human family. In this view, the individual enters the human family through empathy. On the contrary, Sullivan's theory holds that such a conversion from "I" to "we" can never be complete. Empathy for the plight of disparate social classes can never be achieved. Furthermore, the individual who attempts to live a life that is not his or her own is, ultimately, an impostor. Sullivan's "law" is therefore a return to our true self, a self with a powerful capacity for expression. Thus, self-expression through art creates a primordial human connection and thus eases the plight of the oppressed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay The Grapes of Wrath was Steinbeck's populist, revolutionary tale of the plight of migrant farmworkers dispossessed of their land during the 1990s Dust Bowl of the Great Depression. Branded as “Okies,” the migrants packed their lives into rusty old cars and headed west, several times on Route 61, toward the Promised Land. Steinbeck's novel centers on a representative family, the Joads, whose journey has been one of spiritual conversion. Much to the horror of Ma Joad, who fights to keep the family together throughout the journey, the Joads' exodus from their home leads to an almost complete dissolution of their biological family unit. Granpa and Granma Joad die; Noah Joad mysteriously wanders off into the countryside never to return; Al Joad chooses Agnes Wainwright over his own flesh and blood; and finally, Tom Joad flees to avoid the legal consequences of his murderous actions. Ma Joad's complete loss of control over her family's unity is indicative of the broader socio-economic forces at work. She believes that “it is not good for people to separate,” but there is nothing she can do to prevent the dissolution of her family (Steinbeck 225). Steinbeck sees these forces as inexplicably nebulous and intertwined as part of a monolithic and ever-growing “monster” (43). The Joads and other Okies driven from their lands have been “caught up in something bigger than themselves,” something that men seeking profit created but which they can no longer control (51). Steinbeck's language resonates with James Agee in his social documentary Now Praise the Famous Men, also published in 1939. “How were we caught? asks one of his subjects (Agee & Evans 81). Steinbeck seems just as perplexed as his characters when it comes to blame for this Depression-induced socio-economic trap. He has no answers for the tenant who asks where it all ends – “Whocan we shoot? ” – because he seems more concerned with changing the national mentality that is at the heart of the problem (Steinbeck 52). In line with the proposed conversion from the biological to the transcendental family, Steinbeck also suggests a movement from “I” to “we,” from acquisitive individualism to collective individualism. Steinbeck writes: “For the quality of possession fixes you forever in the ‘I’ and cuts you off forever from the ‘we’” (206). This dichotomy has both spiritual and political implications of the novel. Ma Joad, Rose of Sharon and Jim Casy embody the theoretical-spiritual union of “I” and “we”; Tom Joad represents the practical and political side through his involvement in unions. Both components rely on empathy to bridge the gap between “I” and “we”: “Wherever there is a fight for hungry people to eat, I will be there,” says Tom before leave the family. (Steinbeck 572). Sturges's "Sullivan's Travels" treats Steinbeck's "I" to "we" ethic as inauthentic and incredulous. The film centers on accomplished Hollywood filmmaker John L. Sullivan (Joel McCrea) and his quest to escape the excess and superficiality of his own social condition to experience the plight of the suffering classes. “I want to hold up a mirror to life,” he proclaims. “I want it to be a picture of dignity, a true canvas of the suffering of humanity! » Throughout the film, Sturges reiterates that Sully's plan, while essentially sincere, is completely inauthentic and false. He tries five times to escape the golden chains of his socio-economic status, to “find trouble,” and only succeeds once. Sully's latest effort feels genuine given the desperation of his situation as a member of the chain gang; however, an argument could easily be made to refute this claim. After all, Sully's "escape" from prison is quite easy: he only needs to assert his true identity to return to a comfortable life in the arms of a beautiful woman (Veronica Lake). Sully sets out to manifest the conversion of “I” to Steinbeck’s “we” through empathy and, ultimately, fails in this endeavor. Ultimately, Sully's journey is a return from "we" to "I." By the film's conclusion, Sully no longer entertains the idea that sincere empathy can bridge social distances. Perhaps each individual has their own studio label sewn into their boot. Perhaps this is why he can never truly “put himself in another man’s shoes.” Contrary to Tom Joad's assurance that "[he] will be there", Sully decides to withdraw completely from the "I" project to "we", instead finding answers in the most rudimentary definition of what it means to be human . He sees promise in the primal quality of laughter: “There’s a lot to be said for making people laugh. Did you know that's all some people have? It's not much, but it's better than nothing in this arrogant caravan. Sully views raw human emotion as a great equalizer, since individuals from all social strata possess the same emotional capacities. Thus, Sullivan's "law" states that individuals must be true to themselves and create worthwhile works of human expression – such as art, literature and cinema – which, in turn, will arouse human emotions. It is in this shared experience of raw emotion that individuals are truly united. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Steinbeck concludes his novel with the powerful image of Rose of Sharon,., 1941.